Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Builders Association Of India & Ors. ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1989
2.2 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), who, in his turn, relying upon various decisions, held that the Assessee was entitled to the claim of investment allowance and accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to allow the same. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), preferred an appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue relied upon the judgements in the matter of Builders Association of India v. Union of India 209 I.T.R. 877 (S.C.), and C.I.T. v. N.C. Budharaja and Co. 204 I.T.R. 412 (S.C.).
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
The case of N.C. Budharaja and Co. (supra) was decided on its own facts and the Supreme Court was not considering the question of plant and machinery used in the business of production or manufacture. In the said matter, once the Court came to the conclusion that construction was something different from production or manufacture, then, that was the end of the matter. The observations in the said matter were in a different context and had nothing to do with the mining activity.
Cit vs Sesa Goa Ltd. on 17 November, 2004
In the matter of Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the judgement in the matter of N.C. Budharaja and Co. and has quoted the following passage from the said judgement:
Sai University Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sundeep Construction (P) Ltd. on 18 March, 2004
In the unreported judgement of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sandeep Construction (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had observed that the finding given by the Tribunal that the assessee was engaged in mining would be a finding based on facts of the said case, which were apparent from the relevant clause in the contract. The Division Bench, in the said matter, held that the said Assessee was entitled to the investment allowance. In that matter also, the Assessee was engaged in the activity of mining and excavating lignite.
1